US v. Josiah Watson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999514529-2] Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00200-RBS-DEM-2,2:14-cv-00128-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999658173]. Mailed to: Josiah Watson. [14-7854]

Appeal: 14-7854

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSIAH TIONDRA WATSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00200-RBS-DEM-2; 2:14-cv-00128-RBS)

Submitted:

August 4, 2015

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

September 11, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josiah Tiondra Watson, Appellant Pro Se.
Cameron Rountree,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Virginia Beach,
Virginia; Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7854

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Josiah Tiondra Watson appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the

district

court’s

order

§ 2255 (2012) motion.

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

We have reviewed the record and conclude

that Watson’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in
substance

a

successive

§ 2255

motion.

See

United

States

v.

McRae, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4190665, at *5-*6 (4th Cir. July
13, 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32
(2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion
from

an

unauthorized

successive

habeas

corpus

motion).

Therefore, we conclude that Watson is not required to obtain a
certificate
order.

of

appealability

to

appeal

the

district

See Mcrae, 2015 WL 4190665, at *5-*6.

court’s

However, in the

absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion for a certificate of
appealability as moot and affirm the district court’s order.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
2